Freedom Of The Press - The
Fourth Estate
Without freedom of the press, no
democracy - without democracy, no freedom of the press: the freedom to inform and to be
informed acts as a gauge for the respect of human rights - and it is also a learning
process in every democracy
By Wolfgang R. Langenbucher
Until the mid-nineteenth century
"Pressefreiheit," the current German term for freedom of the press, was written
"Preßfreiheit" (freedom of printing). This small difference holds the key to
the best definition of this basic civil and human right: it centres on the freedom to
publish and duplicate, the freedom to express one's own (critical) opinions without
hindrance, the freedom to exchange news and information. Today - in view of the dynamics
of communications technology - we now generally speak of "freedom of
communication." The expression refers to every person's right to exercise both the
freedom of expression and the freedom to access information. This freedom is based on the
ideal of an open society, where everyone can participate in the public processes of
forming political opinion and formulating political demands and objectives. This is the
basis of forming public opinion that can, and should be, a constant corrective to state
rule. This type of constitutional statute is based on many important pre-conditions: it
presupposes tolerance of dissidents, calmness in face of criticism, the acceptance of
plurality, and patience with often prolonged and erring social discussions. The use of
violence, or even the threat of its use, does not fit in with a political culture that is
imbued with such a high level of freedom. These premises make one realize that such
conditions in the world - including the present-day - are more of an exception than the
rule. A world rankings list published at the end of 2003 by the international human rights
organization "Reporters without Borders" gives an indication of the level of
freedom in the media in 164 countries: the ten countries at the bottom of the list with
the worst violations are mainly in Asia. The Scandinavian countries are at the top, and
Germany also does well at eighth place. But a total two-thirds of the world's population
lives in countries where there is no freedom of expression or the press. This painful
truth is confirmed every day by the newspapers - often as a result of work done by
watchdog organizations, such as the International Press Institute (IPI) or Reporters
without Borders. Piece by piece the reports fit together to form a horrifying picture of
worldwide abuses and the struggles, including the established western democracies, to
defend this freedom against constant attempts to restrict it. The freedom of the press is
threatened not only by censorship but also by state or private media monopolies, the
murder or arrest of journalists, intimidation and state regimentation. These conditions in
so many countries have fatal consequences: without freedom of communication a society
foregoes the prospect of developing a thriving economy and culture.
Freedom of expression as a basic
human right
As a result, the denial of this freedom will
continue to cause many pathological conditions. Without freedom of the press, no democracy
- without democracy, no freedom of the press. Many people in Germany were aware of this
two hundred years ago. For instance, the German Jacobins who fought for the sovereignty of
the people and human rights. However, in Germany the constitutional understanding of
freedom of the press was not fully formulated until the Basic Law of the Federal Republic
was created in 1949, particularly in the brief but momentous Article 5: "Every person
shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and
pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. (...)
There shall be no censorship."
Press freedom as a learning process
It's true that, after twelve years of
National Socialist dictatorship, the Germans did not gain freedom of the press as a result
of their own struggles, through underground activities or resistance. It was
systematically prescribed at the end of the Second World War (this applies only to West
Germany, in the Eastern part of the country there was no freedom of expression and the
press in the GDR until the fall of the Wall in 1989). Much of the credit goes to the
American military governor, Lucius D. Clay. In his memoirs, published in 1950 on his
departure from Germany, he remained sceptical, but recognized certain opportunities for
development: "There is still much to be done, if people in Germany want to develop a
true sense of what a free press and a free broadcasting system really mean for the
safeguarding of democratic rights and institutions. The governing democrats always want to
take some kind of legal action against critical editorials in the press or dissenting
commentaries on the radio. On the other hand, however, the independent newspapers and
broadcasting stations clearly manage to make themselves heard, and silencing them will
become increasingly difficult." What happened in the following years - and will most
likely continue forever - could be called the hands-on history of learning to communicate
freely. And it was by no means easy. Many difficulties were encountered in the post-war
years, for instance in broadcasting policy, an area that Lucius D. Clay was particularly
clear about. The key document, a written order dated November 21, 1947, began with the
following statement: It is the fundamental policy of the US military government, that
control over the media of public opinion, the press and broadcasting should be diffusely
distributed, and that the media must be kept free of government control. A few years later
the allied communications experts slowly withdrew their protective supervision. This was
followed by what Hans Bausch entitled "German Course Corrections" in a chapter
of his book about the history of broadcasting. The changes that took place between 1950
and 1956 brought the "increased political tendency to bring the newer broadcasting
organizations closer to state influence and increase their dependency on the ruling party
political forces by creating changes in their constitutional make-up."
The Fourth Estate
What can we learn from this historical
digression? Rather than simply describing the past, it is a question of recognizing forms
of structural continuity. The list of indicators for such changes towards restoration is
long and still shapes the conflicts between the state and broadcasting to the present-day.
The state broadcasting model often seems to remain in close keeping with the Allies'
post-war ideals of freedom. It was not until May 1955 that the reserved rights of the
Allies ceased to be in force. That was when the broadcasting organizations created during
the post-war years were relieved of their "tiresome protectors." In 1961 the
Third Estate in the country, the Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, presented its
comprehensive clarifications and created a kind of Magna Carta of broadcasting freedom
that is still often quoted to this day. Basing its decision on the great English model of
the 19th century, the court thus bestowed institutional status on the Fourth Estate in the
Federal Republic of Germany.
Watchdogs of democracy
Apart from the Federal Constitutional Court,
it was of course the journalists, political commentators and public affairs experts who
acted as the often unpopular watchdogs of democracy, and especially the freedom of
communication. One memorable example was Ernst Müller-Meiningen jr., born 1908, who
focused his memoirs on his own watchdog role. Under the National Socialists he was banned
from working as a journalist. In the post-war years his articles signed M-M. jr. in the
"Süddeutsche Zeitung" became the trademark of a champion of liberalism. He
always raised his voice in protest from Munich against any developments that threatened
the freedom of communication. His great dedication shaped a new tradition and served as a
leading light to many professional colleagues. In 1989 Müller-Meiningen jr. wrote about
the reasons for his vigilance: "The freedom of the press is being rapidly sold down
the river throughout the world. Fascists and Communist dictators look down on it as some
stupid foreign concept. But even in liberally organized countries, the freedom of the
press is increasingly becoming a bare element in the process of advancing rationalization
and automation with their relentless final goal of concentration. In the journalistic
sphere these developments cause nothing but growing uncertainty, existential fears,
conformist journalism and unhealthy developments in the political sphere with
unscrupulously big monopolies, and the 'new media' are speeding up this process."
(Embassy of Germany) |
